Case 1405877/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Miriam Camara v Portsmouth City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405877/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Miriam Camara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 2 and 3 July 2025, Employment Judge Richardson heard Dr Miriam Camara's unfair dismissal claim against Portsmouth City Council. The judgment records that the claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal also found, for costs purposes, that the claimant's case had no reasonable prospect of success and that the claimant acted unreasonably in the conduct of the litigation. Exercising its residual discretion, the tribunal ordered Dr Camara to pay Portsmouth City Council £1,000 within 21 days of the judgment. The written judgment was approved on 3 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 1 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not include written reasons. The tribunal also made a separate costs order of £1,000 against the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.